Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[G.T.]

No, not true.

See the whole debate has been whether gays can marry. No straight same sex couple has yet figured out the cool benefits that they could get by simply marrying.

A 50 buck license could save hundreds a month on health insurance alone.

AND there is no reason they can't just keep dating.

Once people figure this out, it's pure BANK.

Oh its a super secret from straight people?

Lol wow

Have you heard it discussed elsewhere?

Kindly link this.

Yes. Each year i do my taxes or taxes for others, its pretty common knowledge.

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

Who is the idiot?

You call this the goal gay marriage advocates when marriage bennies ALREADY EXIST and are being taken advantage of.

Thats rabbifail nnumber? We are on like a zillion

 

[bripat9643]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Gay couples don't have children.

Of course we do, silly boy.

You got knocked up when another chick munched on your carpet?

 

[bodecea]

Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.

They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.

Tax benefits for people with children are one of those things that normally conservatives would rant about, i.e.,

people voting themselves money from the government.

Tax benefits for creating new tax payers.

Absurd ain't it?

You get those whether you're married or not.

Absurd ain't it?

This is about marriage?

Hetro same sex couples won't procreate either, but will get all the rights and benefits of marriage, like everyone else.

How long do you think employers will have spousal benefits once straight same sex couples find out how beneficial a 50 buck license is?

Bet they were thinking they'd only have to cover a few gay couples, but damn, the married straight same sex couples could bankrupt that concept.

Surely you have heard of hetero marriages of convenience? They've been around a looooooooooong time.

 

[bodecea]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Gay couples don't have children.

Of course we do, silly boy.

You got knocked up when another chick munched on your carpet?

Now now....it's not my fault you don't have a winning argument.

 

[kaz]

Finally someone makes the point. Thank you. I disagree with you, but still I thank you for correctly stating the issue. I think govt has a legit interest in making child rearing less hard to do. I realize there's a distinction between a tax break for breeders than taxing everyone for schools, even if they're non-breeders. Perhaps it would be better civics to simply not have the tax break, but instead offer more public services to kids so the parents don't have a direct expense.

Kaz was masking it with his irrational loathing of gays. And that in turn gave those who either don't know, or choose to ignore, that pretty much universally people who find sex with same sex persons or person if more fulfilling, than sex with non-same sex person or persons, have previously had sex with said non-same sex person or persons.

You people are actually, really, truly stupid. That is the one thing you continually demonstrate

Kaz yanking his own dick again.

I am surprised he has managed to keep it attached.

I only have that problem after seeing some great lesbian porn.

So you are watching lesbian porn while you continue to jerk off here at USMB- what a multi-tasker.

One certainly has to wonder.

At least I don't jerk off on USMB like you two kool-aid swillers

 

[bodecea]

And gays and gay couples are of the people too. Or don't you think so?

Gays can feel free to lobby their representatives in congress to pass bills favorable to gays.

Well, I must say, I'm surprised that you haven't noticed us doing that (and being quite successful at it too) over the last few decades. And when this June rolls around..................

Meh, makes no difference to me I have no interest in what gays are up to except when they go all militant in attacking businesses. They should take care to avoid over reaching and pissing off the majority.

I see...thus your complete lack of interest in this thread.............

No just my complete lack of interest in you, that you exist is meaningless to me, your opinions even less so.

Ah...thus the more than one posts directed at me....because of your complete lack of interest in me.

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

 

[bodecea]

And what of those straight couples who don't intend on having children? Better yet, why should other taxpayers have to subsidize straight mating?

Without straight mating there is no government?

Hummmm

Did it take tax breaks to get the human race to procreate? How much did the average caveman family get?

I guess it's more productive than not. Cavemen? Are there cavemen in the US?

Did non breeding humans produce the population required to advance society?

Interesting the things we take for granted.

The doctor that saves lives, products of opposite sex couplings.

Hmmmm

No...they took care of the children while others were out. And helped financially.

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality - BBC News

You do realize that it in the nature of males to mate as often as they want, right? They get one knocked up, move on to the next, Right?

No need for any order in the primative world.

We however kind of like order. That's what a society that moves forward does. Creates order (or so we would hope).

But hey, let's hope for the best, Right?

Perhaps we now see the demons coming to light? And the reason why someone doesn't like government marriage and the implied responsibility towards one other person that it implies.

 

[bodecea]

So much for your claim that this is a "financial thread".

It always cracks me up how liberals are too arrogant and stupid to process your being mocked. You think no one is smarter than you are, which makes you wrong about everyone...

I'm not afraid to admit that there are many people smarter than I am. You, my dear, are not one of them.

Empirical data directly contradicts that hypothesis

Provide said empirical data.

This and every other discussion we have where you can't follow the discussion and you have no long term memory, both classic symptoms of liberalism

You DO know that's not empirical data, right? Try again....this time with actual empirical data.

 

[bodecea]

Oh, I read the post just fine. I still don't understand why you would think being called gay is an insult. It's never been an insult to me. But, you facing your demons isn't really something I can relate to.

You are not a smart girl. Why are you not asking GT why she implied I'm gay as an insult? Why do you keep asking me why she tried to use being gay as an insult? I don't know, ask her

Why do YOU take being called gay as an insult? That's something you need to ask yourself, don't you think?

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh its a super secret from straight people?

Lol wow

Have you heard it discussed elsewhere?

Kindly link this.

Yes. Each year i do my taxes or taxes for others, its pretty common knowledge.

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

Who saves hundreds of thousands of dollars by getting married?

People who lack medical insurance but need expensive procedures and marry their old college roomate who works for a big company.
People who have big estates and want to leave them to their children so marry their sons.
The list is endless. Of course it would take imagination and logic. So that counts you out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?"

Whatever marriage's faults or failings, whatever objections one might have to the provisions of marriage contracts, those issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law as required by the 14th Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

Finally! A relevant post to the thread. And of course it didn't come from a liberal. They are unable to see past their own bias

Now, there's some good juicy Irony there.

Yes, I'm not liberal, you nailed me. Wow, what an insight, that was awesome

I'm truly enjoying this thread. Your thrashing around is quite entertaining. Truly it is.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.

They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.

Tax benefits for people with children are one of those things that normally conservatives would rant about, i.e.,

people voting themselves money from the government.

Tax benefits for creating new tax payers.

Absurd ain't it?

You get those whether you're married or not.

Absurd ain't it?

This is about marriage?

Hetro same sex couples won't procreate either, but will get all the rights and benefits of marriage, like everyone else.

How long do you think employers will have spousal benefits once straight same sex couples find out how beneficial a 50 buck license is?

Bet they were thinking they'd only have to cover a few gay couples, but damn, the married straight same sex couples could bankrupt that concept.

This is exactly where this is headed.
Marriage will cease to have any meaning outside of a financial arrangement. That is actually the goal of the gay movement, to destroy societal institutions than impinge on their views. Thus the military was sacrificed, the Boy Scouts demonized, churches forced to conform, etc.

You really think hetero marriage is THAT weak and meaningless?

Is your own marriage THAT weak and meaningless?

Mine isn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

It always cracks me up how liberals are too arrogant and stupid to process your being mocked. You think no one is smarter than you are, which makes you wrong about everyone...

I'm not afraid to admit that there are many people smarter than I am. You, my dear, are not one of them.

Empirical data directly contradicts that hypothesis

Provide said empirical data.

This and every other discussion we have where you can't follow the discussion and you have no long term memory, both classic symptoms of liberalism

You DO know that's not empirical data, right? Try again....this time with actual empirical data.

You ought to review the definition of "empirical" before you sound liek an idiot again.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?"

Whatever marriage's faults or failings, whatever objections one might have to the provisions of marriage contracts, those issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law as required by the 14th Amendment.

No couples do not enjoy rights. Individuals enjoy rights. And there is no one who lacks access to marriage. Same rules for everyone.

 

[bodecea]

Have you heard it discussed elsewhere?

Kindly link this.

Yes. Each year i do my taxes or taxes for others, its pretty common knowledge.

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

Who saves hundreds of thousands of dollars by getting married?

People who lack medical insurance but need expensive procedures and marry their old college roomate who works for a big company.
People who have big estates and want to leave them to their children so marry their sons.
The list is endless. Of course it would take imagination and logic. So that counts you out.

Oh...like hetero marriages of convenience.

 

[g5000]

This is exactly where this is headed.
Marriage will cease to have any meaning outside of a financial arrangement.

It was heteros who made it a financial arrangement. It was heteros who demanded government gifts for what they were doing anyway. It was heteros who DEMANDED government in their marriage.

 

[bodecea]

I'm not afraid to admit that there are many people smarter than I am. You, my dear, are not one of them.

Empirical data directly contradicts that hypothesis

Provide said empirical data.

This and every other discussion we have where you can't follow the discussion and you have no long term memory, both classic symptoms of liberalism

You DO know that's not empirical data, right? Try again....this time with actual empirical data.

You ought to review the definition of "empirical" before you sound liek an idiot again.

Empirical:

em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Ok, you got me....there is no "pure logic" in Kaz.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is exactly where this is headed.
Marriage will cease to have any meaning outside of a financial arrangement.

It was heteros who made it a financial arrangement. It was heteros who demanded government gifts for what they were doing anyway. It was heteros who DEMANDED government in their marriage.

Link? I dont recall anyone asking my opinion on the matter.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Non sequitur.

Does monogamous marriage reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do child tax credits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do Social Security survivor's benefits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

Same thing straights get.

Your choice of marriage partner should not and does not hinge on its benefit to me.

Non sequitur.

Does monogamous marriage reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do child tax credits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do Social Security survivor's benefits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

You neither gain nor lose a thing that you don't already gain or lose for married people getting those cash and prizes.

That's impossible. If there is a cost then we all pay that cost. So what do we get in return for paying that cost?

What do I get in return for paying the cost of YOUR marriage?

Why should some Americans get certain benefits while we deny the same to others?